Bankes

Bankes v. Lucas

Bad Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 723·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1079·9 Cal. App. 4th 365·92 Daily Journal DAR 12441·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7686
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1992B054702California2,252 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Appellants, Russell and Marilyn Bankes, appeal from the order of the trial court awarding respondents, Charles and Marianne Lucas, additional attorney fees as costs incurred opposing postjudgment motions. In an earlier opinion reviewing the merits of the controversy, we concluded neither party was the “prevailing party” under the contract, entitling neither party to an award of attorney fees. As a result, we must reverse the postjudgment award of fees as well.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Bankes and Lucas owned contiguous properties subject to a common declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s). In 1987, Bankes filed a complaint against Lucas for breach of the CC&R’s and abatement of a nuisance. Lucas filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process.

The trial court found in favor of Lucas on every issue raised in the complaints. On June 18, 1990, judgment was entered in favor of Lucas and against Bankes for compensatory damages of $352,500 and punitive damages of $225,000. The judgment included attorney fees of $62,589 pursuant to the CC&R’s and Civil Code section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.